Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Sustainability and the Environment.

6.55 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

Three years ago, I stood in this Chamber to introduce the Resource Sustainability Act 2019, or RSA, which is a key part of our Zero Waste Masterplan. The Act put in place a systems-level approach that mandated key responsibilities to support reuse and recycling nationwide. It set out the legal framework to address our three priority waste streams – an extended producer responsibility scheme for e-waste; a mandatory reporting framework for packaging; and mandatory segregation and treatment of food waste.

We have seen the law take effect since. Over 700 e-waste collection points are deployed across Singapore and over 9,000 tonnes of e-waste have been collected for recycling. Companies submitted their first reports for the Mandatory Packaging Reporting scheme last year. We see the first fruits of our shift from a linear take-make-throw economy to a circular one, where waste is turned into resources to be put to good use again.

Our sustainability movement has since gained momentum. We launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030 two years ago, with a comprehensive national agenda for sustainable development. Last year, we raised our national climate target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, affirming Singapore's strong commitment to climate action. To move decisively towards this goal, we passed the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill to ensure our carbon pricing regime supports the transition to a low-carbon future.

Today's Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill marks the next step in our national sustainability agenda. We are introducing three new measures to address packaging waste and food waste: a disposable carrier bag charge at supermarkets; a beverage container return scheme; and a food waste reporting framework for industrial and commercial premises.

These measures are also intended to spark behaviour change. They are a call for everyone to act, to participate and take a stake in Singapore's zero-waste journey to shift from a throwaway culture towards a more sustainable paradigm, one that is characterised by mindful consumption and the sustainable habits of reducing, reusing and recycling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are introducing the disposable carrier bag charge and the beverage container return scheme in the context of a global movement against plastic pollution. So, I would like to take some time to explain Singapore's approach towards plastics and plastic pollution.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Plastics, which are made from non-renewable fossil fuels, contribute to our carbon emissions when they are produced, transported and incinerated at end-of-life. Plastic pollution, especially in the form of transboundary marine litter, is a global problem, spoiling our environment and causing harm to wildlife. Curbing our use of plastics would protect our environment and conserve finite resources.

However, plastics, including single-use plastics, have many important uses and continue to be an essential aspect in many aspects of our daily lives. For example, it is a key component in personal protective equipment and disposable masks. Many Singaporeans also use plastic bags to dispose of trash hygienically.

Plastics are not the enemy here. The littering, wasteful use and unnecessary disposal of plastics are. While we share a common global problem of plastic pollution, we do not necessarily share a common solution. Every country has a different context, characterised by unique circumstances.

Take littering, for instance. Many countries are plagued by indiscriminate littering of plastics. Inadequate or poorly maintained waste disposal facilities can also cause plastics to leak into the environment. In Singapore, our strong stance against littering, along with an effective waste management system, has limited the leakage of plastics.

Likewise, because plastics can persist in the environment for many years if they are directly landfilled, some countries are introducing regulations to ban or restrict single-use plastics, and companies are responding by switching to biodegradable substitutes like paper, biodegradable plastics or wood. However, biodegradable materials do not offer the same incremental benefit in Singapore, where all incinerable waste is not directly landfilled, but is either recycled or properly disposed of at waste-to-energy plants.

In addition, every material type requires precious resources, like water, energy, fossil fuels and trees, for their production, transportation and disposal. All these materials also leave behind a carbon footprint.

Hence, the most effective way to reduce our environmental impact is to reduce our use of all types of materials, not just plastics. Where we cannot eliminate the use of materials, we need to find effective ways of aggregating them for recycling where possible. This is where the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill comes in.

With the disposable carrier bag charge, we hope to nudge Singaporeans to reduce their use of disposable carrier bags, including plastic bags. With the beverage container return scheme, we will put in place a better system to extract clean and valuable streams of plastic and metal recyclables.

Let me explain each initiative.

The disposable carrier bag charge is, first and foremost, a behavioural nudge. Disposable carrier bags will remain available at retail establishments, but making the cost of the bag visible in supermarkets prompts us to pause and consider how many we really need. It is a reminder to bring our own reusable bags and to reduce the use of disposables – an essential feature of sustainable living. The charge was a recommendation of a 2020 Citizens’ Workgroup, and we have engaged the public and supermarket operators extensively on the policy details. A new Part 4A will be introduced to give effect to the charge, which will commence on 3 July this year.

Under section 23F, a registered retailer will be required to charge a minimum of five cents per bag provided to customers. We have kept the minimum charge low to moderate the cost impact on shoppers, while encouraging them to be mindful of the number of bags they take.

We will prescribe that operators of SFA-licensed supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million, will be required to register with NEA under section 23B. Registered retailers may apply to be deregistered if their annual turnover does not exceed $100 million for each of three consecutive years, or if they are no longer a regulated retailer.

Section 23H will require registered retailers to communicate this charge to their customers and set it out separately in receipts where provided. This will strengthen the behavioural nudge.

To monitor compliance, section 23I will require registered retailers to report data to the National Environment Agency (NEA). For public accountability and transparency on the use of proceeds, section 23K will require registered retailers to publish information on the number of bags issued, the amount of proceeds collected and how the proceeds were used.

The Bill will also give effect to a beverage container return scheme. This is an extended producer responsibility scheme, where producers are made responsible for the collection and recycling of beverage containers like plastic bottles and metal cans that they put on the market.

Producers, typically, rely on a scheme operator to carry out these responsibilities. A deposit will be collected for each beverage product covered by the scheme, or "covered beverage product", and refunded fully when empty beverage containers are returned at designated return points. While the scheme is well-established in many jurisdictions around the world, it is the first in Southeast Asia and one of the first few in Asia. The scheme will be a pathfinder for Singapore in our move towards a circular economy, especially for plastics.

Singapore's recycling rate for plastics is low, at only 6%. The scheme will aggregate a stream of clean and high-quality plastic and metal recyclables. The plastic bottles collected will comprise mostly PET, or polyethylene terephthalate, a valuable fraction that is highly sought-after by companies looking to use a higher proportion of recycled PET, or rPET, in their containers to fulfil their sustainability commitments. This rPET can be manufactured into new containers, breathing life into the circular model.

The beverage container return scheme was a recommendation of a 2019 Citizens’ Workgroup. To design a scheme suitable for Singapore, my Ministry and NEA conducted over two years of engagements with stakeholders. Let me share the details of the framework.

I announced at the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's (MSE's) Committee of Supply (COS) debates that the scheme will cover plastic bottles and metal cans with volumes ranging from 150 millimetres to three litres. These have high material value and are easy to collect, compact and recycle.

I also shared that an 80% return rate target will be imposed on the scheme operator. We will move progressively towards this and set a return rate target of 60% and 70% in the first and second year respectively. At the steady state of 80%, this is estimated to amount to around 800 million beverage containers collected for recycling annually.

Now, on to further details of the scheme.

We will be prescribing a deposit amount of 10 cents per container to begin with. This amount takes into account public feedback, as well as the experience of other jurisdictions. In a recent REACH public consultation, the majority of respondents, about 84%, indicated that a deposit amount of 10 cents or higher would be suitable. A higher deposit would encourage participation and a higher return rate, but we do not want the deposit to be too high such that it deters purchases of pre-packaged beverages. Hence, on balance, we determined that a 10-cent deposit per container would suffice to help achieve an 80% return-rate target.

To ensure a robust return point network, Singapore Food Agency (SFA)-licensed supermarkets with a floor area of more than 200 square metres, which comprises about 400 supermarkets, will be required to set up return points. Supermarkets are ideal for this role, as they are major sales channels of beverages and preferred by respondents in our public consultations as return point locations.

This approach of deploying return points at supermarkets is proven to be efficient and associated with high return rates in overseas jurisdictions. To enhance convenience and encourage consumer participation, we will also work with the scheme operator and other stakeholders to establish additional return points in other accessible locations in the community.

To give effect to the scheme, we will introduce a new Part 4B.

Section 23O will require all producers, that is, importers and manufacturers of covered beverage products, to join the licensed scheme.

Section 23P will require containers of covered beverage products to be labelled: first, with a deposit mark for customers to identify covered beverage products; and second, with a barcode to facilitate the acceptance of empty beverage containers at return points.

Section 23Q makes it clear that the deposit is not part of the price of the beverage product. The beverage container or the use of the beverage container, is, therefore, not subject to the Goods and Services Tax.

The deposit, which is first provided by the producer to the scheme operator under section 23R, must be collected by every supplier for each covered beverage product the supplier sells.

Section 23S mandates that certain persons must set up return points.

Section 23U requires return point operators to refund the deposit when an empty beverage container is returned, except under certain circumstances, such as if the deposit mark or barcode is so damaged that it cannot be read or scanned.

We will also be amending Part 6 of the RSA, which provides for the licensing of the producer responsibility scheme operator.

For the beverage container return scheme, a not-for-profit, industry-led scheme operator is preferred. This is similar to successful schemes in other jurisdictions, such as Norway and Denmark.

As the scheme is owned and run by the industry, the scheme operator will be able to tap on the industry’s capabilities and resources. It will also have a strong incentive to operate it efficiently and effectively, to keep scheme costs low for all parties.

I am happy to share that a number of beverage producers have expressed interest to jointly support the establishment of the scheme operator. My Ministry and NEA will continue to engage industry players on the appointment of a suitable scheme operator. More details will be announced in due course.

The scheme operator will be licensed under the existing Part 6, with a few additions.

There is a need to safeguard the interests of various stakeholders, for example, if the scheme operator is led by larger producers. A new section 29A will enable the Minister to prescribe requirements for up to one-third of the scheme operator's key appointment holders, and to require the scheme operator to obtain NEA's approval for these key appointments.

To deter the beverage container return scheme operator from missing the return-rate target, section 32 will be amended to introduce a new, higher financial penalty of up to $500,000 if the scheme operator does not meet the return rate target. Additional safeguards will be introduced, under section 32, to ensure that the power to impose financial penalties is exercised appropriately. NEA, in determining the amount of financial penalty, will be required to consider a list of factors, such as the nature, gravity and duration of the non-compliance.

We have been engaging the industry closely on the details of the scheme. The beverage producers who have expressed interest to jointly support the formation of the scheme operator are seriously looking at implementation details, such as setting up return points and the printing of the deposit mark and barcode for beverage containers. Bearing in mind the size of the task ahead, they have requested for more time to implement the scheme. They have proposed that the scheme go live from 1 April 2025, which is approximately two years from the date of passing of legislation.

We hear this feedback. While we want to move quickly to facilitate a shift towards a more sustainable way of doing business, we understand that the industry needs time to plan and set up a robust and effective scheme. This is to ensure smooth implementation at the ground for the multiple stakeholders of the scheme, beyond the manufacturers and importers to the F&B operators and consumers.

Therefore, we have taken in the proposal and the scheme will go live from 1 April 2025. Thereafter, a grace period of three months will be provided for the beverage and retail industry to clear unlabelled stock, which will not carry a deposit. By 1 July 2025, all covered beverage products supplied must be labelled, and all suppliers must collect a deposit for each covered beverage product sold.

We will continue to support and engage the industry as they work to fulfil their obligations under the scheme. Prior to the commencement date, we will also work with the appointed scheme operator on education and outreach efforts to prepare consumers and other stakeholders for the scheme.

We are also building on earlier foundations laid in the RSA to close the food waste loop. Food waste is a priority waste stream due to its high generation and low recycling rates. When food is wasted, so are all the resources used to cultivate, process and prepare it. With growing pressures on food supply chains and resource availability, we must rethink wasteful linear models and capture value from food waste.

To promote resource recovery for food waste, we introduced segregation and treatment requirements in 2019. The requirements are intended to apply to industrial and commercial buildings, such as hotels, shopping malls and factories, which are large generators of food waste.

In addition to facilitating the treatment or conversion of food waste into useful products, such as new food products or animal feed, other benefits include reduction in disamenities, such as odour and pest nuisance, at the premises.

We are also investing in critical infrastructure to ensure sufficient food waste treatment capacity. Construction of the food waste treatment facility at Tuas Nexus is ongoing and forms part of our efforts to support the industry in treating the segregated food waste.

To complement segregation and treatment requirements, we will be introducing a new requirement for building managers to submit food waste reports to the NEA under section 27C. This will raise awareness on the amount of food waste generated and encourage building managers to pursue waste minimisation opportunities.

To ensure minimal burden on building managers, we have simplified data requirements to key information, such as the overall building-level tonnages. In the long run, reducing food waste and segregating food waste for treatment could also reduce costs for businesses, such as by reducing waste disposal costs downstream and reaping value from transforming food waste into higher value products.

We will stagger the implementation of the food waste segregation, treatment and reporting requirements.

For new buildings, the requirements will commence from 1 January 2024. These are buildings for which application for planning approval was submitted on or after 1 January 2021. For existing buildings, the requirements will commence progressively from the second half of 2025.

Part 5 of the RSA, which has not yet come into force, will be repealed and re-enacted to allow for the staggered implementation. With more circular production practices emerging, there are increasing possibilities to transform food waste into higher-value products. For example, waste bread can be used to make beverages and spent grains from breweries can be processed into powder to be used as ingredients for food products. Therefore, our revised regulatory framework will also provide flexibility to enable the pursuit of these innovative food waste treatment methods.

Under the original Part 5, building managers of new buildings must cause segregated food waste to be treated onsite. The new section 27B will retain this requirement, but also allow segregated food waste to be treated off-site with NEA's approval.

Under the original Part 5, building occupiers of both new and existing buildings must use the segregation and treatment arrangements provided by their building managers. The new section 27 will allow building occupiers of both new and existing buildings to pursue food waste segregation and treatment arrangements separate from those provided by the building manager, with NEA's approval.

In assessing whether approval will be granted, NEA will take into consideration if the proposed treatment methods process food waste into higher-value products.

Let me conclude. At its core, the issue of waste stems from human actions and choices. Likewise, the ultimate solution to achieve zero waste and a circular economy lies not in regulations or technologies, but with us.

With the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill, we are putting in place stronger measures for individuals and the private sector to reduce waste and recycle more to achieve circularity. But these measures are merely a means to an end. The goal for these initiatives must be to catalyse a change that extends beyond the boundaries of the initiatives themselves. They must cultivate new behaviours and encourage a sustainable way of life amongst Singaporeans.

The amendments to the RSA will help to get everyone to pitch in for sustainability.

The private sector will need to establish circular business models to properly collect and treat their beverage products at end-of-life. Building managers and occupiers will need to track the amount of food waste generated and provide space to segregate food waste for treatment.

As individuals and consumers, we will need to rinse and segregate empty beverage containers so that we can return them for recycling and a refund of our deposit. We will also need to remember to bring our shopping bags when leaving the house.

But we will make this shift knowing that it is the right thing to do, that it is good for the environment and for future generations, and so that we can take pride in the stewardship of our resources and our country and do our part in our global fight against plastic pollution and climate change. Our journey towards zero waste will not be easy, but I can say with every confidence that it will be a rewarding one. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

7.20 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, most Singaporeans will agree that there is a need for new policies to mitigate climate change. However, the purpose of these new policies must do more than reflect a message of global warming. These polices must address the need to make small but impactful adjustments to our daily habits.

Let us talk about disposable plastic carrier bags.

As of 2018, 127 out of 192 countries had enacted certain national legislations to address the use of plastic bags. In some of these places, plastic bag bans have not been as effective. Like in California, studies have shown that while shoppers used fewer plastic bags, the sales and utilisation of trash bags has proportionally increased.

A migrant domestic helper, Ms Maricel Vicente from Bacarra, a municipality in the province of Ilocos Norte in the Philippines, shared with me that in her hometown, the supermarkets over there do not provide plastic bags, styrofoam or any plastic containers. They only provide thin brown bags, with no handles. These bags are not helpful if you have to store and carry your groceries. The inconvenience reminded the shoppers to bring their own reusable shopping bags.

Singaporeans use around 2.5 billion plastic bags annually. Just take 10% of that with a five cents charge, you will get a hefty $12.5 million, annually, in bag charge collection. Having said that, the additional five cents to each shopper will probably not deter most of them from the usage of plastic bags.

We should practice what supermarkets in Bacarra does. Completely stop providing plastic bags and encourage shoppers to bring their own recyclable shopping bags. Should shoppers require a bag for their groceries, they can always purchase recyclable bags just like any other product sold at the premises. Should bags be required for trash, trash bags can always be purchased at the supermarket.

This way, we are all implementing simple changes to slow down global warming. To add, this will also avoid any profiteering from the sale of plastic bags that was once provided free of charge.

Let us talk about the beverage container return scheme. An estimate of about 800 million plastic bottles and metal cans are expected to be returned for recycling purposes annually. It is a good thing.

We should do more to encourage this campaign by creating new roles. Maybe we could support the seniors, who once collected discarded metal cans to be sold. Alternatively, scheme operators can hire seniors to manage the collection stations. The Government can support these roles.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I commend the MSE team for nudging Singapore towards a zero-waste nation. However, for these schemes to succeed, attention to details in their implementation is key and nothing beats the importance of communicating public education intensively. Singaporeans must understand why we need to do what we do, and only then will our attempt to slow down global warming be a wholehearted nationwide effort. Notwithstanding my suggestions, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

7.25 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. This amendment Bill seeks to introduce three main requirements to the Act: (a) introduce a plastic bag charge scheme starting with the larger supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million; (b) introduce a beverage container return scheme; and (c) require the segregation and treatment of food waste in prescribed buildings with requisite reporting to the authorities.

I will start with the plastic bag charge.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, back in 2018, when it was declared the Year of Climate Action in Singapore, I had spoken during the COS debate and I asked the Government whether it had any intention to roll out a progressive plan to reduce the use of plastic disposables in Singapore involving either the restriction or the banning of single-use plastic carrier bags, straws and disposable cups, containers and utensils.

I had mentioned that Taiwan had just, then, announced a blanket ban in single-use plastics, including straws, cups and shopping bags, by 2030. Prior to that, there was a progressive plan to make people pay for plastic products like plastic bags, straws, disposable food containers and disposable utensils in the interim.

Back then, there was already more than 40 countries taxing or limiting the use of plastic bags. The evidence had shown that even modest policy interventions can have significant impact. In Britain, the usage of plastic carrier bags fell by 83% after the introduction of a plastic bag charge.

In 2020, the Workers' Party called for the introduction of a single-use plastic bag charge phased-in over five years. I repeated this call in my Budget debate speech in 2021. I, therefore, welcome the imposition of a plastic bag charge to be formally included under today's amendment of the Resource Sustainability Act.

I am also heartened that Senior Minister of State Amy Khor recently cited statistics in Hong Kong, Taiwan and the United Kingdom (UK), where after the introduction of a plastic bag charge in those countries, their usage of plastic carrier bags fell. I quoted the example of the UK in this House five years ago. I am glad that the Government accepted the recommendations of the Citizens' Workgroup on Reducing Excessive Consumption of Disposables to impose a plastic bag charge.

The Government has also announced that the charge to be imposed will come into effect in mid-2023 to "nudge consumers to shift towards the use of reusable bags". This nudging is extremely important as we are talking about the long-term habits of individuals.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have, for the last few years in this House been calling for mindsets to shift in the way we use single-use plastic bags – to only use what we need to use.

In 2018, in response to my call for a plastic bag charge in comparison with other countries like Taiwan and the UK, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said, "Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Dennis Tan asked about our efforts to deal with plastic waste and, specifically, whether we will impose a charge or ban on single-use plastic bags. Unlike many of the countries that have imposed a ban or mandatory charge on plastic bags, we do not directly landfill our plastic disposables but incinerate them. Hence, we do not face the land and water pollution issues that plague those countries. Plastic bags are also necessary for responsible and hygienic bagging of waste in our moist, tropical climate. Unbagged household waste attracts pests like cockroaches and rats, creating serious environmental and health problems."

She also said that, "There are actually good reasons that single-use plastic bags have to be given or used by the public for bagging their waste. Therefore, the issue is really about excessive use – not that you cannot use plastic bags, but excessive use of plastic bags."

I agreed with her, then and now, that plastic bags are needed for the bagging of waste and that the issue is about excessive use of plastic bags. I also thought, then and now, that the fact that we incinerate our rubbish does not remove the need to educate and persuade Singaporeans to try to reduce our plastic bag consumption and to consider greater measures to reduce the use of plastic bags. Hence, my suggestion for a plastic bag charge back in 2018.

In 2020, I said in my Budget debate speech that mindsets must shift in the way we consume – to only use what we need to use. For single-use plastic bags, I had asked – can we take or use what we really need? Can we pack more things into each plastic bag? Do we really need to double-bag all our groceries at the checkouts? If we only need to use, say, one or two plastic bags for very few disposals a day, do we need to take 20 bags from the supermarket in a week?

We can also reduce the number of single-use plastic bags we need to take for our refuse, by concurrently using good quality reusable shopping bags. We may end up using fewer plastic bags and may still have enough bags for our refuse.

In my 2021 COS debate cut for MSE, I reiterated my call for mindsets to shift in the way we consume, to only use what we need to use and called for less use of plastic bags.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would reiterate what I have said previously, on the use of plastic bags. Indeed, while the plastic bag charge will certainly nudge behaviours when people feel the pinch of having to pay for plastic bags, what is more important, I feel, is that we must get all Singaporeans to understand fully: why we are doing this; why we need to reduce plastic bag use; how we can reduce plastic bag production; how we should reduce the number of plastic bags we incinerate every day; and, most of all, to internalise them in our minds so that they instinctively guide our everyday actions. I would like to call on the Government to ramp up on our public messaging to Singaporeans of different age groups.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am also glad that the Government is encouraging reusable bags. I have been using such bags for supermarket shopping for many years – a habit I first had when I was a student abroad. In my 2021 COS debate cut for MSE, I reiterated the call to use more good quality reusable shopping bags in supermarkets or retail shops. Last year, our Aljunied-Hougang Town Council gave a reusable shopping bag to each of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) households in Aljunied and Hougang Town. I hope it will be a useful reminder to our residents to use more good reusable bags and minimise the use of plastic bags.

We have come a long way, even in the last few years, but I hope that, with the plastic bag charge, mindsets will change for those who are used to taking many plastic bags at the supermarket. We need to remind ourselves to only take what we absolutely need.

I would like to ask the Government whether it has any plans to increase public education to encourage less use of plastic bags, in conjunction with the imposition of this charge. Can the Government share its staged plans, if any, to extend the plastic bag charge beyond its current category of retailers of more than $100 million turnover?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill also introduces a beverage container return scheme, which allows a refund of the additional fee imposed when a person buys a beverage in a plastic bottle and metal can.

I support this scheme and I think it can significantly reduce the amount of plastic bottles and metal cans, which are currently being disposed of instead of being deliberately recycled via recycling bins and other proper ways. When we are out, there may not always be a recycling bin in sight when we want to dispose of our drink can or bottle after we have consumed the beverage. I can imagine the number of bottles or cans which are thrown into normal rubbish bins every day and taken to our refuse incinerator.

Also, although many Singaporeans have developed good recycling habits or practices, many are still not doing so. Singapore is not even at the stage as some first-world countries are where households are required to segregate their waste in different categories, such as general waste, paper, plastic, glass, metal, and so on. We are using one recycling bin for different waste but, sadly, it is a common sight to see general waste and contaminated materials being thrown into recycling bins.

Madam, there is still much for us to do to improve our public education efforts.

I believe that the beverage return scheme will minimise wrongful disposal, encourage more recycling and inculcate better recycling habits. Like the plastic bag charge, the beverage container return scheme is, sadly, a form of enforced public education. But it will bring certain knowledge to those who are hitherto ignorant or indifferent to recycling.

I would like to ask the Minister to share with the House, how extensive is the projected availability of the beverage return vending machines. This is important as it complements retail outlets at venues where the beverage containers can be returned. Convenience will certainly enhance greater cooperation and compliance and affect the success of the programme.

We are told by NEA and MSE that packaging waste constitutes about one-third of domestic waste disposed of and about 60% of this is plastic waste and that, in 2021, only 6% of plastic waste disposed of was recycled.

I hope to see a significant reduction in the volume of such waste being sent to our incinerators after the beverage container return scheme and the plastic bag charge scheme are introduced. I also look forward to the scheme being extended to glass and beverage cartons soon.

I would like to ask the Minister, what are the Government's staged plans for further expansion of this beverage container scheme, including the projected time when the scheme will be expanded to glass, as I believe that a lot of glass and even carton waste can be further diverted away from incineration and be recycled, and Singaporeans can be encouraged to work towards this goal. Before I leave this point, and as a follow-up to my COS cut in 2018 on a similar topic, I am also going to ask the Minister for an update on the Government's plans, if any, to reduce the use of styrofoam food and beverage containers, which are still widely used.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will next touch on the segregation and reporting of food waste, as required under the proposed amendments to the Act.

When I was a little boy, I remember being reminded by my parents to finish every bit of food on my plate and being told off for wasting food. Some of us will remember being told by our parents that we have to finish every single grain of rice in our bowl.

Why is curbing food waste important? It is important to curb food wastage because other resources have been invested to grow the food ingredients as well as the cooking of the ingredients for consumption.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP's) Food Waste Index Report 2021, 17% of our food ends up being wasted in retail and by consumers, particularly in households. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, food that is lost, which accounts for food that is grown, harvested and prepared for consumption right up to just before the retail stage and food that is wasted, which is food wasted at the household, retail or food service stages onwards, could feed up to 1.26 billion hungry people every year.

Nearer home, according to a 2019 Singapore Environment Council study, one in three Singaporeans throw away more than 10% of food weekly and this amounts to about $342 million of wasted food a year. Further, food waste has grown by 20% in the past decade in Singapore.

According to UNEP's Executive Director, Mr Inger Andersen, each person is said to waste an average of 74 kilogrammes of food every year in all the middle- and high-income countries in the world.

Why is cutting food waste important? According to UNEP, 8% to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with food that is not consumed. Wasted food meant wasted efforts and resources in producing them, including land, fertilisers, water, packaging, transportation, fuel and so on.

Food waste may also be deposited in landfills, increasing the production of methane emissions. Even in Singapore, where we burn our waste before depositing in landfill, cutting down waste food will also greatly reduce the amount of waste we incinerate and, to some extent, ultimately dumped in landfills.

According to NEA, food waste accounts for 12% of our total waste in Singapore by 2021. We need to work on its reduction. Reducing food waste will also be of great help in making our progress towards our climate goals, including our 2030 emission targets.

That brings us to why we need to do food waste segregation and reporting. Segregation and reporting are the first step to help us to realise and account for our food waste. A retailer or food service provider can, accordingly, be better guided to take actions to reduce food waste and/or even direct food waste to better mitigation measures. Unsold or unconsumed food can be passed on to food banks and charities for consumption by the less privileged. They can also be converted to composts, animal feed or biofuel gases as they are being done in other countries.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for the halving of per-capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and the reduction of food losses along production and supply chains, otherwise referred to as the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of 12.3. Achieving this target would have significant implications for the fight against climate change. UNEP's Food Waste Index Report supports the goals of SDG 12.3, with its comprehensive and reliable food waste data collection, analysis and modelling to date; and helping countries to measure food waste at household, food service and retail levels; to track national progress towards 2030 and to report on SDG target of 12.3.

I support the proposed amendments in this Bill for food waste segregation and reporting, which will complement and support global efforts via UNEP and FAO and through the Food Waste Index Report. Naturally, Singapore, Singaporeans and our Government must do our part to support with clear actions the SDG target of 12.3.

UNEP has reported that the true scale of food waste and its impacts have not been well-understood, until now. I agree. I would argue that we really should educate Singaporeans of all ages and educational levels on the perils of food waste and how we must reduce food waste and channel produced food resources to better uses in mitigation.

While our Government has through its Zero Waste Masterplan and the guides it produced for F&B outlets, supermarkets and food manufacturers to guide and help businesses to reduce food waste – with greater focus on production processes, proper inventory management and effective perishables handling – more must be done to educate domestic households and individuals so that every Singaporean knows about the issue of food wastage and how every Singaporean can consciously minimise food wastage in our daily living habits.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I help out regularly at a food rescue food distribution in Hougang, which focuses primarily on fruits and vegetables. It gives me a frightening glimpse of the potential or actual food wastage at the wholesalers' level on an everyday basis.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to put things in perspective, according to NEA, the total amount of food waste generated in Singapore was 817,000 tonnes in 2021, an increase of 23% from 2020. However, crucially, less than one in six Singaporeans are aware of the problems of food wastage in Singapore.

I call on the MSE to have a multilingual public education campaign to educate Singaporeans on the issue of food waste in individual households, food service, retail and wholesalers. Singapore and Singaporeans must all do our part to step up our efforts to help reach the SDG target of 12.3, of halving food waste by 2030 within the next seven years.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, curbing food wastage can go hand-in-hand with curbing food insecurity, especially among lower-income Singaporean households. I applaud many different organisations like Food Bank, Willing Hearts, many lesser known or less formally organised groups and Singaporeans who are already doing that, such as the Red Collective and the many food rescue groups operating in different parts of Singapore, bringing excess food to lower-income Singaporeans, reducing food wastage and helping the food-insecured Singaporeans.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I support this Bill and I will repeat my call in my Budget debate speech last year, for mindsets to shift in the way we consume single-use plastic bags and, indeed, all single use plastic products – to only use what we need to use. I also hope that the beverage container return scheme will soon be extended to glass bottles and beverage cartons.

Finally, I call on MSE to have a multilingual public education campaign to ensure more Singaporeans will understand the issue of food waste in individual households, food service, retail and wholesalers, so that Singaporeans will double our efforts towards reduction of food waste at all levels.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Shawn Hwang.

7.42 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mdm Deputy Speaker, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, in 2019, the societal costs of plastics produced globally were US$3.7 trillion, more than India's gross domestic product. Although Singapore has a small global footprint, our globalised economy will influence and shape the wider commercial networks beyond our shores.

Within our shores, we are already facing the environmental impact. For example, the Lorong Halus dumping ground, a 234-hectare landfill, was opened in the 1970s. For many years, it was plagued by illegal dumping, foul smell and pollution of the surrounding natural habitat. By 1999, It was filled up in 30 years and was closed.

We then transited to Pulau Semakau, a 350 hectares facility 50% larger than Lorong Halus and receives more than 2,000 tonnes of incineration waste daily. At this current rate, it will run out of space by 2035, with only 12 years remaining. Therefore, we will need to develop more capacity beyond Pulau Semakau.

According to the Singapore Environment Council, Singapore uses 1.76 billion plastic items annually. Of which, about 820 million are plastic bags from supermarkets and close to half a billion PET bottles and disposable plastic items. These plastic products require massive energy and resources to manufacture, distribute and dispose of.

Some studies mentioned that Singapore only recycles 13% of domestic waste. So, what has impeded the recycling efforts? Most were due to the leakage of food and liquid waste, as well as e-waste and styrofoam, which contributed to most of the contamination, rendering most items unsuitable for recycling.

When I engage businesses, youths and residents, many have expressed passion for the climate emergency and their desire to play a more active role. As individuals, they want to have more alternatives and access to participate in more sustainable activities and lifestyles. As a citizen, they urged for more action, a swifter and deliberate effort to push toward a more sustainable society.

In addition, I hear the youths actively advocating for more action to secure their future and our future generations.

This Bill will enable us to reduce waste generation and recover valuable materials from crucial waste elements. It will allow us to divert waste from Semakau and extend its lifespan. The reduced waste generation will reduce our carbon emissions from incineration, build capabilities and move towards a more circular economy.

I have a few questions for the Senior Minister of State.

On the disposable carrier bag charge, how will this affect supermarkets that operate under a single brand but use several special purpose vehicles and subsidiaries where, individually, the turnover is less than $100 million? Will this be aggregated at the group or subsidiary level?

Can the Senior Minister of State share more on the reporting and recording-keeping requirements and how often should these retailers report the details of the bag charge requirements, and if there are any baseline requirements on how this should be published?

Will there be a future mandatory requirement to channel the collected proceeds to support social and environmental causes?

On the beverage container return scheme, in the scenario where the scheme operators have failed to achieve the required return rate, what will be the consequences and mitigating factors? How will the disposal and collection scheme work when cross-border commercial activities are involved, such as F&B services onboard aircrafts and ships?

On food waste reporting, what are the approval considerations for new building managers to pursue alternative food waste treatment methods located off-site? Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader, adjournment.

Resumption of Debate on Question [21 March 2023], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Sustainability and the Environment].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.06 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill creates the law that we need to impose a charge on disposable carrier bags, establish a beverage container return scheme and require building managers to segregate and report on food waste.

I have been speaking up for a charge on single-use carrier bags since 2016. I am glad we are finally debating this Bill in this House today. I support this Bill, as all the initiatives will encourage greener habits, reduce waste and extend the lifespan of our landfill at Pulau Semakau.

I have four points of clarification.

My first point is a point that I have been stressing repeatedly. It is on the expansion of the disposable carrier bag charge to more, if not all, retail businesses.

We currently only apply the charge to large supermarkets because they have the resources to implement it. I know we want to start small and slow and give time for the industry to adapt. But if we want to change mindsets and slash the use of single-use bags, we need to eventually expand the charge to all retail businesses.

Can the Senior Minister of State to at least provide a five-year roadmap for the expansion of the disposable bag charge? A longer-term roadmap gives businesses time to adapt their business models and change their systems. With enough notice, some businesses may even pre-empt the rules and impose their own bag charge before the regulations come into force.

My second point is on applying the charge to online purchases. Increasingly common are "click and collect" purchases, where customers shop online and collect their products at a physical store. Since products are bought in advance, customers can make plans to bring their own reusable bags to collect their purchases.

Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if registered retailers must charge for carrier bags if customers only come to the store to pick up purchases that were made online? How will the charge be determined during check-out online?

Also, will the Senior Minister of State consider implementing the disposable bag charge for online deliveries? Grocery deliveries, in particular, are notorious for being packed in layers upon layers of disposable bags. Online grocers are eroding the market share of brick-and-mortar supermarkets and we should be looking at seriously reducing the waste they generate as well.

My third point is on the beverage container return scheme. Under the scheme, customers have to pay a small deposit for certain pre-packaged drinks, which will be refunded when they return the container for recycling. This will encourage consumers to return beverage containers and increase their recycling rate. However, this may erode the income of those who collect cans for a living. These individuals are often low-income and elderly. Can the Senior Minister of State share if we have studied how the scheme will impact their livelihoods? If so, what additional support will be extended to them?

My fourth and final point relates to the new requirement for building managers to report on food waste being segregated and treated.

While treatment of food waste is a good way to reduce the impact of excess food, it would be even better if we can donate excess food instead. To encourage building managers to increase their efforts in implementing food donation programmes, will the Senior Minister of State consider requiring the reports to also include data on the amount of food donated?

I am glad that we are doing more to tackle food waste and I am glad to share that the Good Samaritans Committee is making good progress in drafting the Good Samaritans Food Donation Bill. This proposed law will help allay concerns about liability issues from the donation of food. It will help reduce food waste further and also provide food for the hungry. We are doing further consultations with stakeholders and I hope to introduce this Bill in Parliament through a Private Member's Bill soon.

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

3.09 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, for decades, sellers have been providing buyers with carrier bags free-of-charge. Obviously, the cost of the bags has already been priced in and bundled with the selling prices of the products for sale. With the implementation of the disposable carrier bag charge, how would the Ministry ensure that the participating businesses pass on the cost savings from the plastic bags to consumers?

I would also like to ask what would be the estimated amount of carbon reduction derived from the decreased production of bags, in addition to the environmental impact, especially the harm caused to marine life.

What is the possibility of getting supermarkets and other stores to switch to alternatives, such as biodegradable bags? Would the Ministry work with retailers and supermarkets to increase the availability of such bags?

As for beverage containers, I would like to ask how the Ministry will ensure that return points for the containers are easily accessible beyond supermarkets. I support making it compulsory for supermarkets to have collection points as many people buy their drinks from there. Would there be return points at coffee shops, hawker centres and food courts as well? With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

3.11 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments in the Bill because it is a much-needed step towards a zero-waste Singapore. We need a comprehensive strategy to tackle plastic waste that also considers reasonable lifestyle changes for all Singapore residents. This is the only way to ensure that our efforts to tackle plastic bag problems will be sustainable over the long term.

One is the issue of proper bagging of waste, especially food waste, before disposal. If we do not provide reasonable alternatives, we are simply pushing the problem of people obtaining plastic bags from supermarkets to other sources. Many residents ask me how they can bag their rubbish going forward as they find five cents per bag pretty expensive. Surely, we do not want residents throwing their rubbish, especially food waste, directly into the rubbish chutes, in order to save on the cost of bags. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] One challenge is the issue of the proper bagging of waste, especially food waste, before disposal.

If we do not provide a reasonable alternative, we are simply pushing the problem of people obtaining plastic bags from supermarkets to other sources. Many residents ask me how they can bag their rubbish going forward, as they find five cents per bag quite expensive.

Surely, we do not want residents throwing their rubbish, especially food waste, directly into the rubbish chutes, in order to save on the cost of bags.

(In English): Are there concerted efforts to support local-level composting or centralised food waste collection solutions? This will also help to close the food waste loop in Singapore, even for households. Will the Ministry be implementing initiatives similar to the Bloobox? Can we build on that?

Lastly, will the Ministry also support the adoption of biodegradable alternatives to plastic bags? Such products can be launched on a wide scale through supermarkets and wet markets.

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

3.13 pm

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I commend the Ministry for Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) for tightening the regulations around carrier bags for brick-and-mortar retailers. Countries, such as Kenya, Rwanda and our neighbour, Thailand, have introduced stringent rules on the production and usage of plastic bags. Kenya, in particular, has implemented what has been called "the world's strictest plastic ban" and banned all single-use plastic bags throughout the country. Three years after they did so, some of their national parks began disallowing all single-use plastics on the premises. Although they did this primarily to tackle the littering problem, they have also successfully reduced plastic waste.

I hope that the measures this House is debating are merely the start towards our equally ambitious measures. Reducing use of plastic bags in brick-and-mortar businesses is an excellent start and I hope MSE can go beyond by also looking into the online retail space.

Since the pandemic, many more have been shopping online. In 2022, the World Wide Fund for Nature Singapore (WWF Singapore) found in their study that a total of 200,000 e-commerce parcels from various platforms are delivered across Singapore each day and this number is projected to grow by approximately 50% by 2025.

Merchants from e-commerce platforms are especially generous with their packaging, often using layers of bubble wrap and other materials. Sometimes, we find our items to be very small, but the boxes to be very big. Granted, retailers do so to ensure that products are delivered in good condition to their buyers and we can hardly fault them for that.

But there is a massive amount of packaging involved in these shipments and deliveries. Out of the 1.56 million tonnes of household waste generated in Singapore in 2018, approximately one-third was packaging. How does MSE plan to control the large amount of packaging used for online shopping deliveries?

It is heartening to know that some companies in the private sector are already initiating efforts to reduce and reuse packaging. Can the Government accelerate these efforts by introducing a "sustainable packaging" mark? This mark would indicate to online customers that the packaging used by merchants is either second-hand, compostable or otherwise recycled and, therefore, eco-friendly.

We can work with packaging companies and environmental groups to co-create the minimum sustainability standards that packaging materials should adhere to in order to earn this mark. We can also work with online retail aggregating platforms like Alibaba Express, Taobao, Lazada and Shopee to enrol online retail consumers to rate retailers on their packaging practices.

Such a mark will create collaboration between consumers and online retailers to achieve greener online shopping together. By exercising their purchasing choices in favour of retailers who use second-hand packaging, it will incentivise merchants to adopt less wasteful packaging practices.

In a study by Ipsos last year, 88% of Singaporeans said they were receptive to donating used packaging and 62% of Singaporeans said they were receptive to receiving their products in second-hand packaging – myself included. However, merchants are reluctant to adopt second-hand packaging due to the low cost and easy availability of packaging products – what we call "virgin packaging".

Hence, I believe we should make virgin packaging more costly and less accessible to compel merchants to reuse packaging more since their consumers are already receptive to it. This means that we should find ways to possibly tax the manufacturing, import and/or procurement of plastic or single-use packaging products to increase the cost to merchants, such that it makes more economical sense to adopt greener packaging practices.

Some people may resist this, as the concern is that, merchants will transfer the cost to consumers. However, I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing as it will provide a disincentive for excessive shopping and make consumers more deliberative and conscious about what they are buying and to differentiate between things that are nice to have but not really necessary and reduce wasteful consumption as a whole.

If we were to implement these measures, the Government should work towards the necessary infrastructure enablement to ensure a coordinated system of localised facilities to collect and reuse packaging. It is important that we help merchants with changing their practices to make it as seamless and pain-free as we can.

I look forward also to further details on the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework that MSE announced in 2021. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

3.18 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed measures in this Bill are important steps towards a more sustainable Singapore. I have some clarifications on the proposed measures in the Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that the scheme to charge for disposable plastic bags has been carefully studied for implementation. To ensure the success of this policy, we should learn from the experiences of other countries that have implemented similar policies.

What are some of the challenges that they have faced? What are the key lessons that we can learn from them?

I have received feedback from residents who questioned the need to discourage the use of plastic bags at supermarkets. Many Members have also spoken about this. They argue that these bags are often reused by households to bag rubbish. They have expressed concern that discouraging plastic bag use may result in food waste being thrown directly down rubbish chutes. This leads to other environmental issues, such as the breeding of pests.

Are there plans in place to monitor this situation? Will there be increased enforcement of regulations targeting the failure to properly bag rubbish for disposal?

The Ministry has assured that the public will continue to have access to disposable bags from other sources. This includes those available for bagging fresh produce from supermarkets. Hence, it should not hinder the practice of responsible waste disposal. Even so, this could lead residents to exploit such loopholes by taking extra bags.

Some residents have also shared that since plastic is incinerated in Singapore, their remains take up less space in landfills than other types of waste. They felt that the resources spent on discouraging the use of plastic bags could be better spent on managing other types of waste instead.

How has the Ministry factored in these perspectives in the implementation of the plastic bag charge?

Moreover, while the plastic bag charge is a positive step, it should not be viewed as the ultimate solution. Consumers might start purchasing single-use plastic bags from online and overseas retailers, where they are usually more affordable in bulk.

How will the Ministry tackle this problem and ensure that we are not simply redirecting residents to another source of plastic bags that cannot be recycled? This may cause our residents to pay more, and it will not solve the problem. Will this not impact our less well-off residents?

Another concern regarding the plastic bag charge is that retailers may use their voluntary participation in the scheme as an excuse to incorporate the cost into the prices of their products. In doing so, they continue to give out plastic bags without offering consumers a choice.

This would make it difficult for consumers to know that they are paying for the bags as the charge would be factored into the total bill.

Whilst this may be small and insignificant when compared to the overall cost of the sales, this may constitute profiteering, especially for those who may have brought their own bags.

How will the Ministry ensure that retailers are transparent about the plastic bag charge and that consumers are fully informed about a retailer's plastic bag policy?

It is critical to grant all consumers the freedom to make choices about plastic bag use to achieve the policy's objective. Otherwise, some businesses may take advantage of the situation. Ultimately, consumers will bear the losses.

This brings me to my next point. Is the five-cent charge per plastic bag enough to discourage consumption or should we consider charging more? In fact, some retailers are already charging 10 cents per bag.

I understand that supermarkets will be required to publish information on how the proceeds from the sale of plastic bags would be used for charitable or other environmental causes. Are there existing guidelines as to what constitutes proper use of the funds?

Next, we should also consider expanding the plastic bag charge to cover all single-use disposable plastic items. My colleagues and I have raised concerns about the environmental impact of such items in Parliament before and I have asked about the measures to reduce their use by enterprises. With meetings, gatherings and events resuming in full force, disposable cutlery, plates and cups are, once again, being used at these occasions.

For individuals, many food and beverages (F&B) retailers are already charging for takeaways with disposable containers and single-use cutlery. Therefore, a mandatory charge for disposable items would not be a new concept.

I am of the view that charging for single-use plastic bags is the right step forward as we should discourage waste. Perhaps, when we, as a society, better understand the detrimental impact of plastic pollution on our health and the environment, we may consider a complete ban on single-use plastics as momentary convenience may lead to prolonged harm on our health and on the environment.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise some concerns regarding the beverage container return scheme.

Will this scheme have an impact on karang gunis and waste collectors in the industry, since metal cans and plastic bottles are still sought after? Are there any potential disruptions in the waste management industry that need to be addressed, especially for elderly waste collectors who rely on collecting recyclables to supplement their income?

Could the Ministry mandate the establishment of beverage container return points in the community and in public areas instead of leaving it as a voluntary initiative? It seems reasonable to assume that these return points would be more heavily used, given that many consumers would purchase their beverages online or from heartland retailers, vending machines and supermarkets.

If not, how does the Ministry plan to monitor demand and increase the number of return points, if existing ones prove to be insufficient?

Additionally, how does the scheme take into consideration the needs of seniors and those with mobility limitations who may find it inconvenient to return beverage containers? These individuals would have to incur the extra costs of beverages but may be unable to return the beverage containers for a refund of their deposits.

What measures are in place to engage the public and ensure a high level of awareness and participation rates, particularly during the initial stages of implementation? Will the campaign be promoted in schools and at community events? Will there be publicity materials in stores and public areas, reminding and instructing consumers to utilise the return points?

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some questions regarding the food waste management scheme.

Is the Ministry considering expanding the scheme to cover other types of buildings and premises besides industrial and commercial buildings? Locations which come to mind are the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) cookhouses. Other potential sites may include schools, hospitals and nursing homes.

With on-site classes returning in full force, have there been any recent studies conducted on the amount of food waste generated in these premises? This may serve as an opportunity to raise awareness among National Service recruits and students about the importance of not wasting food. It is important to start educating individuals from a young age.

I note that under current provisions, new buildings must treat food waste on-site. However, with approval from the National Environment Agency (NEA), building managers of new buildings may seek alternative food waste treatment methods located off-site.

Are these off-site facilities designated by NEA? What are the requirements and what is the proximity amongst them? If so, how does the Ministry define whether an off-site facility is adequately close to the buildings to ensure efficient and safe transportation of food waste?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, these initiatives are a step in the right direction towards promoting responsible consumption and changing mindsets in the long term.

Pursuing these initiatives is, ultimately, about balancing business costs and sustainability efforts. Nonetheless, this does not need to be a zero-sum game. More innovative solutions and technology must be explored to make going green less costly and reduce the associated overheads.

Most importantly, we should endeavour not to have waste at all. We must embrace a culture that minimises waste or, even better, no waste, and practises consumption in moderation.

This cannot be the sole responsibility of the Government. Rather, it must be a collective effort of every individual and organisation to make a significant impact on our environment.

A New England proverb puts it most succinctly on how we can do so, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without."

By doing this, we can achieve a greener and more sustainable Singapore for every one. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

3.27 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, which seeks to reduce packaging and food waste.

Consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are, understandably, concerned about higher costs as a result of the new legislation. Allow me to share some of their specific queries.

Supermarket outlets whose operators have an annual turnover of more than $100 million will be required to impose the minimum five-cent charge per carrier bag for purchases made. Does this charge apply to convenience stores like Cheers and 7-Eleven, which are related to the NTUC Fairprice and Dairy Farm groups respectively?

May I clarify, for online orders of groceries by these supermarkets, would the charge also apply to the deliveries made? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] About 80% of our residents' households live in Housing and Development Board and about 16% in condominiums. It is a habit for Singaporeans to put their rubbish into plastic bags before throwing them down the rubbish chutes.

I am concerned that residents will proceed to buy more plastic bags, which may be cheaper than five cents per piece if they buy in bulk. Unfortunately, there seems to be no better material than plastic to bag wet and perishable products.

(In English): I am also concerned that reusable plastic bags, which shoppers are encouraged to bring along, may not be environmentally friendlier if the frequency of usage is low.

Next, regarding the beverage container return scheme, does the scheme operator have the flexibility or room to exercise creativity to entice consumers to recycle plastic bottles and metal cans, such as by refunding the deposits and topping up in the form of supermarket vouchers, in the event the scheme operators are partnering the supermarket chains, which have a better network of outreach, so as to improve the recycling rate?

Would the Minister share what is the average return rate in other countries which had introduced this scheme earlier than Singapore?

I would also like to ask how much space does a single returning point take up, and what would be the estimated monthly cost to operate a returning point? How will the Ministry ascertain the success of this scheme? Will the scheme be funded by taxpayers' money? Are there any Government grants that the beverage producers can tap upon to minimise producer fees which may be passed on to consumers eventually?

I am worried that consumers will likely end up paying more if the recycled material value is lower than the cost of joining and complying with the licensed scheme. The other concern would be over people fighting over used metal cans and plastic bottles at F&B joints or rubbish collection points.

Finally, I have some questions about food waste reporting.

I would like to ask about food manufacturers which also have food catering businesses. May I propose that the food caterers be required to report the leftover food items brought back to their factories as food waste too? Would the Ministry consider penalising food caterers who dump the food waste at clients' places instead of bringing it back to the factories? Are food waste generators required to report the amount of food waste periodically? What are the disclosure requirements?

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

3.31 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy that Members from both sides of the House have expressed support on the initiatives proposed in this Bill. Let me address Members' thoughtful comments and suggestions.

First, the disposable carrier bag charge or "bag charge". I am glad that many Members have expressed support for the bag charge, including Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng. Indeed, many Members, including Miss Cheng Li Hui, former Member of Parliament, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah as well as non-governmental organisations like Zero Waste SG and WWF Singapore have also called for a charge on disposable bags. Mr Louis Ng, as he noted, has been speaking up about a charge since 2016 and I commend him for his persistence.

We heard these calls. The Government has been studying the experiences of other jurisdictions that have implemented a bag charge. We are also mindful of our local circumstances, where plastic bags are widely used by households to dispose of waste hygienically and where incinerable waste is not directly landfilled. We convened the Citizens' Workgroup in 2020 to tap into diverse views and insights to address the issues of disposables. After we accepted the recommendation to implement a disposable carrier bag charge, we consulted widely to hear different considerations, seek feedback and build collective support.

I am glad that Mr Dennis Tan agrees that it is the excessive use of disposables that we need to tackle. By placing a visible cost on each bag, we will be more sensitive to the impact of our consumption on the environment.

While Ms Joan Pereira raised concerns about cost, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if we should consider charging more to discourage consumption. Indeed, we need to strike a careful balance between creating an effective behavioural nudge and managing the cost impact on households.

Compared to other retail establishments, shoppers tend to make larger purchases at supermarkets and may have to purchase more bags if they forget or do not bring enough reusable bags. We have therefore set the bag charge at a minimum of five cents and most covered supermarket operators will be charging five cents per bag when the bag charge comes into effect. The bag charge can be avoided by bringing our own bags. We all have to play our part for the environment.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Shawn Huang asked about the use of proceeds from the bag charge. Covered supermarket operators have flexibility to decide on the use of proceeds but will need to account to the public for how they were used. Our approach to mandate annual declarations on the use of proceeds ensures that there is transparency and public accountability, while minimising regulatory and compliance costs. I am heartened that all the supermarket operators have indicated that they intend to use the proceeds to support environmental and social causes.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked about expansion plans for the bag charge. We will monitor the effectiveness of the bag charge and assess the need to expand coverage. For example, will we observe new behavioural norms where bringing your own bag for shopping becomes second nature? Will more retailers follow suit to voluntarily charge for disposable carrier bags? We can learn from the experience of other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and England, which have taken a phased approach in extending the coverage of the bag charge over time.

Mr Don Wee asked if the bag charge would apply to convenience stores. As I said in my opening speech, operators of Singapore Food Agency (SFA)-licensed supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million will be required to charge for disposable carrier bags at their SFA-licensed supermarket outlets. Convenience stores, such as those operated by Cheers and 7-Eleven that do not sell or prepare raw meats, poultry or seafood, are not required to have supermarket licences and hence, do not come under this legislation. Nonetheless, I note that Cheers and 7-Eleven are already charging for disposable carrier bags voluntarily.

Members have raised clarifications about online grocery purchases. We will prescribe in the subsidiary legislation that the bag charge will not apply to disposable carrier bags used by retailers to bag groceries that are purchased online and delivered to the customer. This is because customers do not have the choice of using their own bags.

Nevertheless, we agree with Ms Carrie Tan that there is scope for online retailers and platforms, not just supermarkets, to reduce packaging waste. We will study how best to address packaging waste from e-commerce, including online grocery shopping, as we develop the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging waste management. In the meantime, we will work with the supermarket operators to compile best practices and develop guidelines on reducing packaging for online purchases. We also encourage other retailers to pursue initiatives to reduce and reuse delivery packaging.

To Mr Shawn Huang's question on annual turnover, this will be determined at the entity level and will not be aggregated at the group level. We will monitor the implementation of the bag charge and assess if there is a need to adjust how annual turnover is determined in the future.

On Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Joan Pereira's concerns about responsible waste disposal, I would like to reiterate that the practice of properly bagging waste before disposing of it in rubbish chutes should still continue. We are not imposing a ban on disposable carrier bags. They will still be available. Other packaging such as the bags that hold bread or toilet rolls can also be used to bag waste as alternatives to supermarket carrier bags.

The bag charge should not be an excuse to dispose of waste in an irresponsible manner. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Don Wee commented that with the bag charge, consumers might start purchasing single-use plastic bags from online and overseas retailers in bulk. While this is possible, these consumers would likely only buy what they really need and be more mindful of how they use the bags, since they would also have to pay for them.

Members like Ms Poh Li San and Mr Dennis Tan spoke about the importance of public education to promote greater understanding of the value of sustainability and effect positive behavourial change. I agree with this. Our nation-wide "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign has been ongoing since 2019. As part of the campaign, we work with many partners including supermarkets and F&B establishments to amplify the message of sustainable living and encourage action through initiatives and incentives.

The campaign aims to help Singaporeans better appreciate why we need to reduce the use of disposables and food wastage and how to do so. The campaign messages are shared across multiple touch points and languages to cater to the wider population. The Government plans to increase public education in conjunction with the commencement of the bag charge.

In the lead-up to 3 July, we will ramp up public awareness efforts together with the supermarket operators. We will remind the public to bring their own bags to avoid the bag charge and offer suggestions on alternatives to supermarket carrier bags for bagging waste. We are also encouraging the supermarket operators to carry out initiatives to support the transition from disposable to reusable bags, such as bring-your-own-bag initiatives and the distribution of reusable carrier bags, especially to lower-income groups.

In the spirit of environmental stewardship, I urge everyone to be mindful not to take more disposable bags than necessary and start bringing our own bags, even before the bag charge commences.

Let me now address the beverage container return scheme. The scheme has seen good results overseas. To Mr Don Wee's question, similar schemes in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Lithuania have consistently achieved return rates of 80% or higher.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have asked about the return point network. Setting up a convenient return point network is a top priority, because it is crucial to the scheme's success. The mandated return points in larger supermarkets will form an important part of the network. At other community spaces and public areas, NEA will work with the scheme operator to encourage premises operators to voluntarily set up return points. Based on the experience overseas, setting up a return point can increase footfall to stores. The scheme operator will also pay handling fees to return point operators as part of the commercial arrangement, to reimburse costs incurred.

The scheme operator will be setting up return points at locations based on considerations, such as footfall and proximity of return points. The Government will also exercise oversight via licensing conditions to ensure a robust network of return points for the public to return beverage containers conveniently.

Mr Don Wee asked about the space taken up by a return point. This would depend on whether the premises operator opts for an over-the-counter return point, or a reverse vending machine (RVM). RVMs range in size, with smaller machines requiring around 0.6 square metres of space and larger ones with higher capacities requiring up to three square meters. Premises operators may work with the scheme operator to determine the optimal RVM size for their premises.

Mr Don Wee asked whether the scheme operator can exercise creativity in boosting recycling rates, such as by offering supermarket vouchers. Return point operators would need to provide a full refund of the deposit amount when the covered beverage container is returned. As highlighted in my opening speech, the 10-cent deposit has been set to provide the necessary behavioural nudge to achieve the desired return rates. That said, we will certainly encourage the scheme operator to work with stakeholders such as return point operators to explore innovative ways to boost return rates.

For example, in addition to the cash option, they could create different options for refund, including supermarket vouchers, rewards points or donation to charity. We see such practices in overseas jurisdictions too. For example, in Australia, consumers are given the option to donate their refunds directly to charity. Beyond this, return point operators may also work with the scheme operator on further promotional initiatives to increase footfall to their stores, if they wish to.

Mr Don Wee asked how the scheme is funded. This is an EPR scheme, where producers are responsible for the collection and recycling of their products. As such, the scheme would be financed by producers, that is, the covered beverage importers and manufacturers. Producers will pay producer fees to the scheme operator to carry out these responsibilities on their behalf.

These fees would be proportional to the beverages they put out to the market. The revenue from the sale of clean, high-quality and high-value recyclables will be utilised by the scheme operator to reduce the scheme costs. The eventual cost pass-through to consumers in beverage prices, if any, will likely be moderated by price competition among industry players. This is also the experience in other countries that have implemented similar schemes.

I appreciate that business costs are a concern. We have also heard this feedback at our consultations with companies. At the same time, many have also expressed their support for this scheme, recognising the importance of sustainability.

We do need to balance cost and environmental considerations, especially in this uncertain economic environment. Therefore, we have taken a consultative and pragmatic approach in developing the scheme.

First, as outlined in my opening speech, we hope to establish an industry-led scheme operator, which is a good practice that we see in jurisdictions overseas. It will have a strong incentive to operate efficiently. It will also be able to tap on the industry's capabilities and resources to improve operational synergies, such as using existing logistics channels to make backhaul trips.

Second, we will continue to support the industry and provide sufficient time for implementation.

In my opening speech, I spoke about how we are adjusting the timeline to implement the scheme based on the industry's feedback. We have also supported the industry with knowledge and capability building. We organised an industry workshop last year and invited an overseas scheme operator to share best practices. We will continue to convene and facilitate discussions and knowledge sharing amongst industry stakeholders.

Third, where possible, we will provide operational flexibility for companies to decide on arrangements that are more cost-effective. For example, producers could consider using stickers for the barcodes and deposit marks, or to directly print them on the beverage container.

Mr Shawn Huang asked about the scenario where the scheme operator fails to meet the return rate target. We place great importance on ensuring that the scheme operator meets the return rate target. I mentioned in my opening speech that we will have a specific and higher financial penalty for missing the target for the beverage container return scheme.

However, we want to avoid this outcome as much as possible. We will support the scheme operator on key scheme aspects that contribute to achieving the return rate, such as public education efforts and deploying a robust return point network.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about measures to raise awareness and participation. Indeed, this is a key area of work that we will partner the scheme operator on. We will need to reach out to all segments of society, as Mr Yip described, and spread the message in our communities. We want to bring everyone on board to do their part for sustainability.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Poh Li San have raised questions and suggestions about the scheme in relation to the broader waste collection industry, including informal waste collectors such as karang gunis. NEA will work with the scheme operator on appropriate measures to cater to them.

For example, the scheme operator could deploy return depots to accept beverage container returns in bulk, similar to arrangements made in other jurisdictions to involve the informal sector in the collection network.

Even as we seek to deploy a network of accessible return points to make returning beverage containers as convenient as possible, we recognise that the elderly and less mobile residents may find it more challenging, as Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted.

We want to design a scheme where everyone can participate. We will continue to seek out ideas from the community, such as students and community groups, on how we can encourage community support and involvement to make the scheme more accessible to less mobile residents. NEA will work closely with the scheme operator to make the scheme work for these members of our community.

I am glad that Mr Dennis Tan is supportive of the scheme and is even calling for the expansion of the scope to glass bottles and beverage cartons.

We are, first, targeting plastic bottles and metal cans because they are easy to collect, compactible and have high material value. They also comprise about 70% of beverage containers put to market. Including glass bottles or beverage cartons would add complexity and cost to collection logistics and infrastructure. They will continue to be recycled under the National Recycling Programme after the scheme begins. We will monitor the scheme closely and assess the need to expand coverage, if necessary, or to include them in future phases of the wider EPR scheme for packaging.

Mr Shawn Huang asked how the scheme would work for cross-border commercial activities, such as food and beverage services onboard aircrafts and ships. There are varying circumstances in how the beverages are supplied to aircraft and ships, as well as where the beverage containers are then disposed of. NEA has been engaging the industry to develop suitable arrangements for such activities.

Finally, on the new food waste reporting requirements.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if we would consider requiring other types of buildings, such as SAF cookhouses, schools and hospitals, to segregate food waste for treatment and submit reports.

Under GreenGov.SG, public sector buildings with food and beverage or F&B establishments will segregate the food waste for on-site or off-site treatment from 2024. This will include SAF cookhouses, schools and public hospitals.

Some public sector buildings have already done so. For instance, several polytechnics have introduced food waste segregation measures and installed on-site food waste digesters at F&B areas within their premises. For non-public sector buildings, we will explore extending the segregation and reporting requirements to more types of buildings over time.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Shawn Huang asked about off-site food waste treatment for new buildings.

NEA will not determine which off-site treatment facility building managers should send their food waste to. Building managers can determine this based on their business considerations and submit their proposal for NEA's approval. Our intent is to encourage higher value-added processes, such as valorising food by-products into animal feed ingredients or even food products. More details on the approval criteria will be provided when ready. The food waste must be transported by licensed general waste collectors in a manner that safeguards public health.

Mr Don Wee suggested that food caterers should take back leftover food from their clients' events for segregation and reporting. He asked if we would consider imposing penalties on those who dispose of the food waste at the clients' premises.

It is primarily the consumers' responsibility to avoid food wastage by ordering just enough food for their guests. We encourage everyone to adopt such sustainable practices to minimise food waste from catering events.

Mr Don Wee asked about food waste reporting requirements and frequency. To minimise compliance burden, we will only require key data to be submitted annually, such as the building-level tonnages.

Mr Louis Ng asked if we would consider requiring food donation amounts to be reported. We will not require this as donated food is not food waste. We agree that donating excess food which is safe for consumption will reduce the amount of food waste, and the latter will be reported.

Regarding the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, MSE, with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), will continue to work closely with Mr Ng's team on this.

Ms Joan Pereira asked if there is any support provided for community food waste collection and composting solutions to close the food waste loop for households. Ms Pereira will be glad to know that the SG Eco Fund has supported many such initiatives in the community, such as food waste collection drives, composting and gardening workshops, as well as initiatives that mobilise residents to bring their food waste to a central collection point to be turned into compost for their local community gardens.

Under the Green Action for Communities movement, we are hearing good ideas from residents, including on handling food waste. MSE and Green Plan agencies will work with residents to bring these ideas to fruition.

Let me conclude. The proposed changes set out in this Bill represent our next steps in this journey towards zero waste and a circular economy. In particular, the beverage container return scheme and disposable carrier bag charge will require individuals to adjust their daily lives and their daily habits.

Life-as-usual and business-as-usual cannot continue if we are to responsibly steward our resources and environment. Each of us has a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions, conserve Semakau Landfill and enhance resource resiliency. By reducing waste and recycling right, we can do our part to combat climate change and ensure that Singapore remains clean, green and liveable.

I call on all Members of the House to give our support to this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

3.55 pm

Mr Speaker: Clarifications. Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. As we know, the plastic bag charge scheme will start with the larger supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million.

I just wanted to ask for the Government's position on the retailers who are not currently covered by this $100 million point. If they would voluntarily want to impose a plastic bag charge and if, for example, they are going to charge more than what the supermarkets are going to charge, what is the Government's position on this and what is the recourse that Singaporeans may have if they feel that this may come up and this may amount to profiteering or something like that?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Currently, there are already retailers who are voluntarily charging for bags and the bag charge actually varies. So, really, this is a commercial decision. It is also part of their sustainability drive if they are into this, and we will leave it to them, and the consumers have a choice of whether to patronise these retailers.

What we have done is for the covered supermarkets, we have mandated a charge of at least five cents and, as I have said, most of the supermarkets that are covered will be charging five cents per bag. For us, we have mandated a low charge of five cents because we are also cognisant of the fact that most people get their disposable bags from the supermarket and if they shop in supermarkets, they tend to require more bags and, if they forget to bring their reusable bags, then they will have to pay for that.

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? Okay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.